The influence of pilocarpine and biperiden on pH value and calcium, phosphate, and bicarbonate concentrations in saliva during and after radiotherapy for head and neck cancer

Radiation-associated changes in saliva composition of head and neck cancer patients: A systematic review

Xerostomia is a common radiation-associated toxicity in patients with head and neck cancer. Although several studies examined the decrease in saliva production due to radiotherapy (RT) and investigated the factors associated with this side effect, little is known about the change in radiation-associated saliva composition. This systematic review is the first to summarize existing data and give an overview of the change in pH/buffer capacity, electrolytes, proteins, enzymes, and mucins due to radiation to the salivary glands. Literature search was performed in PubMed and Embase with 47 articles finally eligible for the review, analyzing the saliva composition at several time points before, during and/or after RT, or comparing findings in irradiated patients to a healthy control group. Overall, RT leads to a substantial decrease in salivary pH and buffer capacity. For sodium, chloride and calcium ion, as well as amylase, an increased concentration or activity during RT was reported in most of the studies, followed by a subsequent decrease either already during RT or after the end of treatment. Different trends have been described for the total protein concentration during and after RT. Lactoferrin, however, increased considerably, especially in the first phase of RT. Mucin 5B (MUC5B) concentrations showed a slight increase during RT and concentrations around baseline values again six months post-radiotherapy.

An Overview of Clinical Oncology and Impact on Oral Health

As the incidence of cancer continues to increase, so too will the use of various forms of cancer therapeutics and their associated oral and dental complications. Although many of the acute and chronic oral toxicities of cancer therapy are largely unavoidable, appropriate and timely management of these complications has the potential to alleviate morbidity and improve outcomes. Undoubtedly, the substantial short- and long-term impacts of cancer therapy on the health of the oral cavity requires increased awareness, prevention, and treatment by multidisciplinary healthcare teams consisting of medical oncologists, dentists, and other oral healthcare specialists. This mini review provides a brief purview of the current state of clinical oncology and its impact on oral health. The topics introduced here will be further investigated throughout the remainder of the “Oral Complications in Cancer Patients” mini-review series.

Pharmacological interventions for preventing dry mouth and salivary gland dysfunction following radiotherapy

BACKGROUND

Salivary gland dysfunction is an 'umbrella' term for the presence of either xerostomia (subjective sensation of dryness), or salivary gland hypofunction (reduction in saliva production). It is a predictable side effect of radiotherapy to the head and neck region, and is associated with a significant impairment of quality of life. A wide range of pharmacological interventions, with varying mechanisms of action, have been used for the prevention of radiation-induced salivary gland dysfunction.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of pharmacological interventions for the prevention of radiation-induced salivary gland dysfunction.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 14 September 2016); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 8) in the Cochrane Library (searched 14 September 2016); MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 14 September 2016); Embase Ovid (1980 to 14 September 2016); CINAHL EBSCO (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; 1937 to 14 September 2016); LILACS BIREME Virtual Health Library (Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database; 1982 to 14 September 2016); Zetoc Conference Proceedings (1993 to 14 September 2016); and OpenGrey (1997 to 14 September 2016). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials, irrespective of their language of publication or publication status. Trials included participants of all ages, ethnic origin and gender, scheduled to receive radiotherapy on its own or in addition to chemotherapy to the head and neck region. Participants could be outpatients or inpatients. We included trials comparing any pharmacological agent regimen, prescribed prophylactically for salivary gland dysfunction prior to or during radiotherapy, with placebo, no intervention or an alternative pharmacological intervention. Comparisons of radiation techniques were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 39 studies that randomised 3520 participants; the number of participants analysed varied by outcome and time point. The studies were ordered into 14 separate comparisons with meta-analysis only being possible in three of those.We found low-quality evidence to show that amifostine, when compared to a placebo or no treatment control, might reduce the risk of moderate to severe xerostomia (grade 2 or higher on a 0 to 4 scale) at the end of radiotherapy (risk ratio (RR) 0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 0.67; P = 0.001, 3 studies, 119 participants), and up to three months after radiotherapy (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.92; P = 0.01, 5 studies, 687 participants), but there is insufficient evidence that the effect is sustained up to 12 months after radiotherapy (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.23; P = 0.21, 7 studies, 682 participants). We found very low-quality evidence that amifostine increased unstimulated salivary flow rate up to 12 months after radiotherapy, both in terms of mg of saliva per 5 minutes (mean difference (MD) 0.32, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.55; P = 0.006, 1 study, 27 participants), and incidence of producing greater than 0.1 g of saliva over 5 minutes (RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.86; P = 0.004, 1 study, 175 participants). However, there was insufficient evidence to show a difference when looking at stimulated salivary flow rates. There was insufficient (very low-quality) evidence to show that amifostine compromised the effects of cancer treatment when looking at survival measures. There was some very low-quality evidence of a small benefit for amifostine in terms of quality of life (10-point scale) at 12 months after radiotherapy (MD 0.70, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.20; P = 0.006, 1 study, 180 participants), but insufficient evidence at the end of and up to three months postradiotherapy. A further study showed no evidence of a difference at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months postradiotherapy. There was low-quality evidence that amifostine is associated with increases in: vomiting (RR 4.90, 95% CI 2.87 to 8.38; P < 0.00001, 5 studies, 601 participants); hypotension (RR 9.20, 95% CI 2.84 to 29.83; P = 0.0002, 3 studies, 376 participants); nausea (RR 2.60, 95% CI 1.81 to 3.74; P < 0.00001, 4 studies, 556 participants); and allergic response (RR 7.51, 95% CI 1.40 to 40.39; P = 0.02, 3 studies, 524 participants).We found insufficient evidence (that was of very low quality) to determine whether or not pilocarpine performed better or worse than a placebo or no treatment control for the outcomes: xerostomia, salivary flow rate, survival, and quality of life. There was some low-quality evidence that pilocarpine was associated with an increase in sweating (RR 2.98, 95% CI 1.43 to 6.22; P = 0.004, 5 studies, 389 participants).We found insufficient evidence to determine whether or not palifermin performed better or worse than placebo for: xerostomia (low quality); survival (moderate quality); and any adverse effects.There was also insufficient evidence to determine the effects of the following interventions: biperiden plus pilocarpine, Chinese medicines, bethanechol, artificial saliva, selenium, antiseptic mouthrinse, antimicrobial lozenge, polaprezinc, azulene rinse, and Venalot Depot (coumarin plus troxerutin).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is some low-quality evidence to suggest that amifostine prevents the feeling of dry mouth in people receiving radiotherapy to the head and neck (with or without chemotherapy) in the short- (end of radiotherapy) to medium-term (three months postradiotherapy). However, it is less clear whether or not this effect is sustained to 12 months postradiotherapy. The benefits of amifostine should be weighed against its high cost and side effects. There was insufficient evidence to show that any other intervention is beneficial.

Dental Plaque pH and Micro-organisms during Hyposalivation

We have previously reported that minor gland and whole saliva flow rates and salivary proteins showed differences in individuals with primary Sjögren’s syndrome or head and neck radiation therapy, compared with controls ( Eliasson et al., 2005 ). We now hypothesize that pH and number of acidogenic micro-organisms in dental plaque as well as saliva buffering capacity also differ in these individuals. Plaque pH was measured by the microtouch method up to 60 min after a sucrose rinse. Plaque collected from the same sites was analyzed for counts of total and acidic micro-organisms. Compared with their controls, the irradiated group but not the Sjögren’s syndrome group displayed significantly lower plaque pH, increased numbers of lactobacilli and Candida species, as well as reduced buffering capacity. Stepwise regression tests suggested that the buccal minor-salivary-gland secretion rate in the test groups and counts of mutans streptococci in the controls were of significant importance for dental plaque pH.

The impact of dairy consumption on salivary inoculum

Quantitative levels of harmful oral microbes present following complex surgical excisions of head and neck cancer are important since wounds are often contaminated through direct connection to the oral cavity and its flora. This possibility is especially important in irradiated patients who have decreased protective salivary function. In addition, high oral microbial levels increase and intensify oral mucositis leading to significant morbidity in patients treated with radiation therapy. One previously untested surgical teaching to decrease the bacterial inoculum present in the oral cavity is to counsel patients against consuming otherwise nutritious dairy products, as they are thought to coat the oral cavity with rate-limiting nutrients vital for bacterial growth. This risk may extend to individuals with chronic laryngeal penetration or aspiration, since salivary bacterial load might represent a lethal threat in the presence of marginal pulmonary reserve. A crossover study using six healthy adult volunteers and six patients who had previously undergone radiation therapy to an oropharyngeal primary site was performed. Saliva samples were quantitatively cultured in both groups with and without the consumption of dairy products at 1-h and 5-h intervals. Analysis of quantitative cultures demonstrated that the consumption of dairy products had no influence on bacterial levels present in previously radiated subjects and nonirradiated controls. Additionally, the consumption of dairy did not affect the composition of microbes present. Due to the lack of changes in both quantity and composition of oral bacteria seen in this study, patients would not benefit from the avoidance of dairy products.

Minor gland saliva flow rate and proteins in subjects with hyposalivation due to Sjögren's syndrome and radiation therapy

In this study, the secretion rate and IgA, albumin and lactoferrin concentrations in minor labial and buccal gland saliva were investigated in individuals with hyposalivation due to primary Sjogren's syndrome (pSS; 10 subjects) or head and neck radiation therapy (RT; 10 subjects) and in their matched controls. Whole saliva was similarly examined. The minor gland saliva flow was measured using the Periotron method. IgA, albumin and lactoferrin concentrations were analysed by ELISA techniques. A general finding was that the flow rate and protein concentrations were lower in labial than in buccal gland saliva. In both hyposalivation groups, the labial minor gland saliva secretion rate was lowered compared to their respective controls. The buccal gland saliva flow rate was significantly reduced in the RT group only. IgA and albumin concentrations were not different from the controls in the labial secretions. The concentration of lactoferrin was increased in the RT group. In buccal saliva, the concentrations of all proteins examined but pSS IgA, were increased compared to the controls. Reduced flow rate and increased protein concentrations were seen for whole saliva where the lactoferrin concentration was higher in RT than in pSS subjects. Thus, our findings suggested that minor gland saliva flow rate and protein concentrations are affected in RT and pSS subjects and to highest extent in the former.